A court’s apparent sense of “breedism” has led to an extraordinarily rare legislative pairing.

As the fallout continues over a Maryland Court of Appeals ruling that calls pit bulls inherently dangerous, two state delegates on polar opposite sides of the political spectrum are co-sponsoring legislation that would overturn the court’s ruling.

This quick turnaround is incredibly important; since last month’s decision, landlords are already telling their pit bull-owning tenants they can’t keep their dogs. This means the loss of beloved family pets, shelters and rescues being overrun with dogs, as well as a financial hit for a state that is already facing economic struggles. When it comes to this legislation, time is of the essence.

And this is where the bad news comes in:

It appears unlikely that the legislation will receive a serious look from the House of Delegates, however. House Speaker Michael E. Busch, D-Anne Arundel, is not expected to put on the agenda anything more than the state’s fiscal 2013 budget.

But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t at least try. “Unlikely” and “unexpected” doesn’t mean “impossible,” and stranger things have happened. And if enough animal lovers speak up, legislators cannot help but hear.

what about a test if the dog pass the test and dont seem aggresive he get a certificate and be good.just like we have in germany certain breeds have to do a test u gotta pay money to do it but at least if u pass u able to keep ur dog.a dog trainer comes and do different situations with the dog and the owner like a bike rider riding by also somebody making a fast move at the end if the dog passes the owner get the certificate and its all good

fearnot

no thanks.. rather fight than put up with the rules in Germany which only certain breeds have to pas..

I just don’t understand how we can let aggressive people run loose and yet ban hundreds of thousands of dogs that have never hurt a fly simply because they “look mean” and “have a history of being used as fighting dogs”. So do Shar Peis, Tosas, Akitas, the New Guinea Singing Dog, they’ve all been used for fighting… where are they in this legislation? I’ve been working with dogs for 12 years now. I’ve worked with many different breeds including many pit bulls that have sailed through my classes and earned their Canine Good Citizen Certificate. Why? Because they have a very strong need to please their owner and will do what they want; whether that may be fight to the death or therapy for the elderly. In that time I’ve only been bitten by one dog; a yellow lab. I really hope that I live to see the day when people and animals are seen as individuals and not as only a breed, a race, or a color.

Stu

I second that, Angie! People can be so ridiculously fickle and discriminatory. How they are given the right to legislate , making arbitrary and subjectively based decisions is beyond me! I have never owned a sweet bully, but I know dogs and wolfdogs in general. Pitbulls were originally known as the “nanny,” in England, for their undying loyalty to children. Hard to believe, but true. Whenever any animal or human is backed into proverbial and real corners, they react, defend and retaliate. We were ALL born with an innate sense of survival. When they are used for fighting, their limits are stretched, crossed and defied. It is so irrational to judge any animal based on their reactions to these extreme and very provocative conditions. It’s assinine and thoughtless. The ONLY ones who should suffer dire consquences are the humans involved in inhumane practices such as fighting and breeding their nice temperaments out of them for the same. NOT the nice ones who have them as loving companions.